Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[killer b]

Infighting in the LP resulting in the expulsion of Militant and rejection of social democracy by the LP
Defection of gnat of four to set up new party -> merger with liberals
Attempted assassination of PM
Beginnings of the rise of the SNP

Plus an actual decades-long civil war

 

[emanymton]

I’m hearing a lot of talk of them having tricks up their sleeve to still get away with a no-deal exit. This could of course just be bluffing - either aimed at the EU so that it appears to still be ‘on the table’ (as effective as if it still was) or aimed at opposition within parliament, hoping they will believe him, panic and go for a no-confidence vote that plays into his hands.

You think they might have secret tricks that they might use to get a result they don't want?

 

[Mr Moose]

Things may kick off a bit at rallies, but Brexit themed riots seem highly unlikely.

Brexit in itself is a weak cause, it doesn’t put food on the table. Some people may have voted for it out of frustration because they are being ground down. But if they riot it’ll be about that (or some sort of price hike) rather than something that engaged them once three years ago. And most Brexit voters are not in that position. They are en masse, older, non metropolitan. Hardly riot material and any rioters won’t have their support.

Putting this on the front of a newspaper seems like someone’s wishful thinking.

 

[SpookyFrank]

You think they might have secret tricks that they might use to get a result they don't want?

Who even knows with these fucking people.

 

[Supine]

Things may kick off a bit at rallies, but Brexit themed riots seem highly unlikely.

Brexit in itself is a weak cause, it doesn’t put food on the table. Some people may have voted for it out of frustration because they are being ground down. But if they riot it’ll be about that (or some sort of price hike) rather than something that engaged them once three years ago. And most Brexit voters are not in that position. They are en masse, older, non metropolitan. Hardly riot material and any rioters won’t have their support.

Putting this on the front of a newspaper seems like someone’s wishful thinking.

Is it not the people who lost the vote who are supposed to riot?

 

[Doctor Carrot]

You can bet there were people in the 80s going 'meh, this is nothing we had an actual war on in the 40s and we were on our own against the fascists preparing for invasion'

I just don't see the point in 'yeah, well things were worse in my day' and? That was nearly 40 years ago. I'm interested in now and the future direction I'm being taken in by a bunch of vicious cunts. Very few people under 40 want brexit, pointing that out doesn't make you some sort of all in EU bum licking remainer or, worse, a liberal fucking democrat.

 

[chilango]

From the BBC

.
Former Prime Minister Sir John Major - who on Thursday accused Mr Johnson of "wilfully" destroying the prospects of a cross-party agreement on Brexit - expressed concern that the government might sidestep the law by suspending the Benn Act until after 31 October.

Sir John said he thought ministers might be planning to do this by passing an Order of Council, which can be approved by Privy Councillors - government ministers - and has the force of law.

 

[Mr Moose]

Is it not the people who lost the vote who are supposed to riot?

Well apparently this is THE most exciting thing that has ever happened and half the country simply can’t live without it.

 

[gentlegreen]

From the BBC

I suppose by having it in the open is safer ...

Spoiler: video explanation from Phil Moorhouse - scary - I have nothing to add

 

[chilango]

On riots.

It might be the case that most Brexit voters don't fit the profile of a rioter.

But the communities that many of them live in might.

 

[butchersapron]

From the BBC

Sir John said he thought ministers might be planning to do this by passing an Order of Council, which can be approved by Privy Councillors - government ministers - and has the force of law.

The privy council is far wider than govt ministers - Corbyn is a member ffs.

 

[redsquirrel]

You can bet there were people in the 80s going 'meh, this is nothing we had an actual war on in the 40s and we were on our own against the fascists preparing for invasion'

I just don't see the point in 'yeah, well things were worse in my day' and? That was nearly 40 years ago. I'm interested in now and the future direction I'm being taken in by a bunch of vicious cunts. Very few people under 40 want brexit, pointing that out doesn't make you some sort of all in EU bum licking remainer or, worse, a liberal fucking democrat.

You had a go at @S☼I earlier for putting words in your mouth and your now going to come out with this nonsense. Nobody has even mentioned 'worse' or 'better' what they have (rightly) challenged is the utter garbage that the political transition from the post-war to neo-liberal consensus was not a huge fundamental change with profound results to society.

And the dismissal of class does make one a liberal, if not necessarily a Liberal Democrat.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

You had a go at @S☼I earlier for putting words in your mouth and your now going to come out with this nonsense. Nobody has even mentioned 'worse' or 'better' what they have (rightly) challenged is the utter garbage that the political transition from the post-war to neo-liberal consensus was not a huge fundamental change with profound results to society.

And the dismissal of class does make one a liberal, if not necessarily a Liberal Democrat.

Where did I dismiss class? And where did anyone say that transition wasn't a huge fundamental change? Anyone saying that isn't the case is obviously talking nonsense. All I'm saying is the impression I get is if you mention anything other than class, even though class is a fundamental aspect, or express your concerns about the current climate you're some kind of wet liberal who doesn't know they're born. It's tedious.

 

[redsquirrel]

Where did I dismiss class?

I did not say you did. I deliberately used 'one'.

And where did anyone say that transition wasn't a huge fundamental change? Anyone saying that isn't the case is obviously talking nonsense.

It certainly is fascinating. More dangerously - brexit has split the working, middle and upper classes. It has also split the left and right. It's a fundamental sea change that impacts everyone in the UK. None of your quoted examples have anywhere near the long term impact. Unfortunately.

Really if you are going to have a go at people for misinterpreting things reading the thread might be a good idea.

 

[Mr Moose]

On riots.

It might be the case that most Brexit voters don't fit the profile of a rioter.

But the communities that many of them live in might.

Can you give an example? Somewhere a largely white nationalist themed (if Brexit is to be the cause) riot could gain wider support?

If people riot together they will be putting aside Brexit and it will be about prices, fuel, rents, policing etc. It won’t be about membership of an economic community of nations.

 

[redsquirrel]

I suppose by having it in the open is safer ...

Spoiler: video explanation

FFS this is the second time this crappy video has been posted without any explanation.

If you cannot be bothered to give a sentence summary on what you are linking to do not bother posting at all. It's against the rules for a reason.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

I did not say you did. I deliberately used 'one'.


Really if you are going to have a go at people for misinterpreting things reading the thread might be a good idea.

I'm sure supine can speak for themselves but I don't think they're saying the 80s weren't a fundamental change just not the same league as brexit. I think they're wrong about that as Brexit stems from it but we're still living through brexit so don't know what the long term consequences will be yet. I just know that personally, being under 40, ive never seen things this bad. Snow should probably know better though.

 

[Dogsauce]

You think they might have secret tricks that they might use to get a result they don't want?

What result do they want? I guess the goal is re-election in the very near future with a good working majority, a mandate to do what they like. Brexit is just a means of achieving this, one way or another. Johnson is ramping up a crisis that might help him achieve this result, to hell with what else falls over along the way.

At the moment no deal seems the only possibility as parliament has been sufficiently pissed off that they will never give Johnson the victory of a deal, and he must be aware of this and working around it, despite the pretence of negotiation.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Is it not the people who lost the vote who are supposed to riot?

Lol

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

Ok here I go. I’m going to regret this one.

What’s so awful about being on the liberal left? (And I don’t mean being a Lib Dem!)

*runs and hides*

 

[SpackleFrog]

Can you give an example? Somewhere a largely white nationalist themed (if Brexit is to be the cause) riot could gain wider support?

Yeah they might not be white nationalist themed, for info.

 

[danny la rouge]

I suppose by having it in the open is safer ...

Spoiler: video explanation

What’s in the video? How long is it? Why should we watch it? Do you agree or disagree with it? What is the source? You know, the usual kind of basic courtesy to fellow posters.

Many of us work in locations where playing audio clips is not appropriate or maybe even forbidden. If you want us to bother going back to the video after work, then please just tell us why.

This is a general plea to all. I’m not singling you out. A few brief words is all that’s needed.

“Here’s a 15 min video by x about y. It really gets to the point, although it is probably wrong about z, but I’ll let them off because it’s funny/pithy/well lit”. That sort of thing.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Ok here I go. I’m going to regret this one.

What’s so awful about being on the liberal left? (And I don’t mean being a Lib Dem!)

*runs and hides*

 

[Mr Moose]

Yeah they might not be white nationalist themed, for info.

Who else cares enough?

 

[SpackleFrog]

Ok here I go. I’m going to regret this one.

What’s so awful about being on the liberal left? (And I don’t mean being a Lib Dem!)

*runs and hides*

I'll try and give a really brief answer: liberals generally believe that there can be a harmony of interests between classes ie that something can be good for the working class and the ruling class at the same time. A lot of people here would disagree.

Case in point would be EU membership. Liberals say that EU membership is good for everybody and don't understand why anyone would vote against it. But if you leave in a deindustrialised community which has been stripped of jobs by the last 40 years of neoliberal transformation, you may not see it that way.

 

[danny la rouge]

Ok here I go. I’m going to regret this one.

What’s so awful about being on the liberal left? (And I don’t mean being a Lib Dem!)

*runs and hides*

It’s a fair question. The word “liberal” is sprayed about as an insult, but for me the issue is something like this:

If I call you a liberal, I mean it in a specific sense. Not to mean that you belong to a capital L political party, nor, as those the American right do, to mean that you are somewhere to the left of wherever the speaker stands, nor do I mean that you are generous in some way.

Rather, I use it to mean that your position ignores the structural issues in the problem being discussed. I use it to mean that you are seeing the problem in terms of individual behaviour rather than social construction. I use it to mean you are missing some important systemic formation, such as class. Usually class.

For example, if you are complaining of media bias but are seeing that bias in terms of the individual behaviour of individual journalists, then your approach is liberal. Here, Ed Herman explains why he and Chomsky believe a structural explanation is the one that’s needed.

The liberal limits ideas to individual behaviour. The liberal thinks that in order to free the media from bias, all that is needed is for individuals to behave better, more morally, more fairly. While these aims may in themselves be laudable, they will have limited effect, as the structures will not have been tackled. The liberal’s ideas therefore lack rigour. If I call you liberal, I am saying your analysis lacks rigour.

This limiting lack of rigour defines the liberal response to the ills of capitalism for a reason. Liberalism became a political expression of the capitalist class. It offers a lack of rigour because it doesn’t want to overturn the privilege of the elite. It limits the debate to a discussion of individual morality, because that way change itself is limited. Liberalism offers individual guilt that change has not come fast enough, but it does not offer real change.

If I call you a liberal, I don’t mean it as a compliment.

There’s a great entry Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society by Raymond Williams, which butchersapron once posted a link to the pdf of. I’ll see if I can find that...

 

[SpackleFrog]

Who else cares enough?

Do you honestly think the only people in Britain who really care about Brexit are white nationalists? Because if you do, you're even denser than I thought.

You have to see things in context. Phone hacking, expenses scandals, economic crisis, austerity, the Lib Dems promising free education and then doing the opposite. Now on top of all that the political class have held a referendum, told everyone it mattered and want to find a way to forget it happened. Not every one who is angry about that is a white supremacist?

 

[brogdale]

Case in point would be EU membership. Liberals say that EU membership is good for everybody and don't understand why anyone would vote against it. But if you leave in a deindustrialised community which has been stripped of jobs by the last 40 years of neoliberal transformation, you may not see it that way.

Agreed.
But there are plenty of liberals saying that withdrawal from the EU is good for everybody.

 

[cupid_stunt]

The privy council is far wider than govt ministers - Corbyn is a member ffs.

The privy council is a bit odd, there's over 600 members, but they don't all meet up, most have no political power. The privy council monthly meetings with the queen only has to have 3 attend, and all must be government ministers, it's only ministers acting for the government that have political powers.

 

[danny la rouge]

fakeplasticgirl here: Are you a Marxist